Recently in class, we determined that institutions like museums and galleries are who define what art is, and from this weeks lecture we have seen that art as we know it has changed greatly and developed into much broader contexts. Chapter 1 in your text book divides up art into several categories like Fine Art, Popular Culture, and Kitsch. In our class we will be considering all types and not just Fine or High Art. The reason for this is that my understanding of art today is not limited to what I see in a museum or gallery, that within theories like, Visual Culture, all of what we see on a daily basis is taken into consideration. Contemporary artists are keen on understanding the blurring of categories of art...that there is a good deal of grey area to work within and to create new ideas from. For example, lets look at contemporary Japanese artist Takashi Murakami .
What is more important in your definition: (1)the artwork's meaning or (2)its aesthetic appeal?
Most recently he was given a very large exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. Murakami wants to occupy the space between high art and popular culture...he produces paintings, installations, large scale inflatable art, designer handbags and many types of commercially available objects. His work is a blend of different cultures and different styles but it always reflects a self-conscious consumerism. Please visit the two links I have provided, google for more info if needed, and respond to one or more of the questions within this post.
If an artist works with a team of people to complete large projects and/or to produce objects that are not unique, but are for public consumption, does this diminish your definition of what an artist is? Please explain.
What is more important in your definition: (1)the artwork's meaning or (2)its aesthetic appeal?
Why do you think that Murakami continues to produce objects that we might think of as kitsch or far from the realm of high art? Do you think his large scale paintings and sculpture should be enough?
I do believe that if a team of people are involved in making art but it uses things that are not unique to most people it does not count as art by my definition. Today we saw pictures of things like a bottle rack and a urinal. When something is made as a mass consumer product there should be no possible way that a person can take one of those products and say it's art just because they brought it into an art setting. Some of the painting that I see called art just make me shake my head. Scream for example looks like something that could have be painted by a eight year old. I think works like this are degreating to real artists.
ReplyDeleteI think that the artworks aesthetic appeal is more important. Murakami must think of art much differently than most people. His large scale paintings and sculptures are enough.
I do not believe that using something that is not unique is art. I think art is a creation, not just an item someone wants to call art. Also, this takes absolutely no talent, and to be an artist, you should have some talent. The aesthetic appeal of art is the most important aspect, because art is made for people to look at.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the previous comment, i think this is actually talent as well as art. I do not believe that I could create something as artistic as this. it does not matter whether the piece of art is simple or compex.
ReplyDeletePersonally I am old-school on the whole art thing. I believe that art should be both beautiful and meaningful, with emphasis on the meaningful part. Since everyone has different ideals as to what is meaningful, I beieve that to someone maybe a urinal turn any which-way could be considered art.
ReplyDeleteIn concurrance with my previous statement, I believe that Murakami continues to make art in the manner that the artist makes it because it is meaningful to said artist.
Oh yea, to go with that last post, I seem to recall that Picaso was rather odd aswell. How come noone ever questions his art?
ReplyDeleteI think that art is all in what the viewer makes of it, and when the artist was create which ever form of art he really never place a specific meaning to his work. The artist wants to open are minds to see what we could come up with. For example if we look at Jan Van Eyck "Double Portrait" We each would have a different mean to what we thought it meant
ReplyDeleteI think art is whatever the person looking at it makes of it. Everybody iterprets and looks at things differently. Only the artist will know the real meaning of the piece of art. Although, it is interesting to see what other people think of the same piece of art.
ReplyDeleteIts really all up to the artist! Reguardless that a group of artists were told to paint something for a person or specific group the artist decides on how intricate the work will be. Whether it is a detailed sunset or a canvas covered with splatters of paint.It really starts in the artists head!
ReplyDeleteNo I don't see anything wrong with an artist working with a group of people because the artist's masterpiece might need a little help from others to make it turn out right. I think just because the artist doesn't always have an unique creation doesn't make them not an artist because every work of art is looked at differently from every individual. From seeing the different pieces of art showed today I think every artist's artwork shows a creativity that makes them unique and different from other artists.
ReplyDeletePersonally I've never really heard of a team of artists compiling a piece but I don't see why it would matter if an artist did work in a group. Apparently everyone in that group in there for a common purpose and that is to create something. As far as uniqueness goes, I don't think that art has to be completely unique to be considered art. Some pieces of art don't have to be fully unique but they can still have their own unique twist to them.
ReplyDeleteIn order for me to fully appriciate and define art I need to see the aesthetics before i can understand or want to know the meaning behind it but that's just me. I know that what i find beautiful or meaningful there will be someone who disagrees with me. Looking at the pictures above I do consider Takashi Murakami's work art and I really like the boldness and all the colors.
Takashi Murakami's art grabbed my attention because of the bright vivid colors and his use of creative imagery. I first gained interest in Takashi after he designed a album cover for Kanye West's album Grauation. After looking his work up, I began to see a pattern of bright colors and cartoon with emotions.
ReplyDeleteThe artwork's aesthetic appeal is more important to me. When you look at a piece of artwork, each induvidual person creates their one meaning or interpretation of the art.
ReplyDeleteThe first painting above reminds me of a cover on a CD that i have. His name is Kanye West. The picture looks very similar
ReplyDeleteThe first painting above reminds me of Kanye wets Cd cover
ReplyDeleteI believe that Takashi Murakami's work is art because it has function behind it. His work has meaning behind it mostly appealing to the Japanese culture more than any other as you can see.
ReplyDeleteI found Kolwitz's work to be both creepy and intriguing. The art was unlike any other work that I have seen and it really made me think about what she was trying to communicate. I can understand her work better when I try to look at it from her point of view, having lost her child and a grandchild to war.
ReplyDeleteI think that what the piece of art looks like is just as important as the meaning behing the piece. At first you look at an art piece and think about if you like this or not. Then you start thinking about what the artist actually means with it and then again you ask yourself if you like it or not. There are a lot of objects or paintings I come across and think are ugly. But then when I start thinking about what the thought behind it is, it can turn out beautiful to me but in a different way.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Murakami's work should be considered art even though he works with a team to sell it to the public. Because his work is on purses and other personal belongings people might think less of it. To me his art is just as good as a painting framed on a wall, and more affordable.
ReplyDeleteI think art can be anything. Art in my own definition is what you make it. Everything from plays to paintings, body styling of a car to cell phones, nature to clothes we wear. So, a group of people working on a designer handbag is art in my eyes. When you really come to think about it clothes are a big art. Gallerias put displays up for you to look at art and maybe even purchase so isn’t a clothing store basically just an art galleria for clothes?
ReplyDeleteI think that both play some kind of role in the structure of artwork. The name in some cases may have nothing to do with the work while in others it gives you a look into what the artist was trying to create. The aesthetic appeal of a piece is what draws you into look and wonder about its meaning or creation. One of my favorite paintings is Hieronymus Bosch, "The Garden of Earthly Delights". The piece has so much going on its hard to really understand just what the artist is trying to say with flowers growing out of strange places on people and random berries floating around, and the fact that everyone is nude. But, once you get the name of the piece you understand what it's supposed to represent.
I think that what art means is what is important. Anything can look good. But does that really make it art? The computer screen I am looking at is a work of art in someway, but it doesn't have meaning, other than a way to look at the internet. So can someone actually say that a computer monitor is really a masterpiece, and because they think it looks nice makes it aesthetically appealing? Anyone's work can be considered art, but in my opinion, maybe only if it has meaning! Why can a urinal be considered art? Because there was some significant meaning in the artist's eyes. If people thought everything had meaning then they would be trying to make art out anything that they got their hands on.
ReplyDeleteAs for Murakami, I think he produces his art because it can be looked at that way by certain people. People can also think it looks like a cartoon, but that's their opinion.
Adrianna Ketchmore says that i think that he still produces the art pieces that he does because, as we studied in class art is whatever u want it to be. There is no set defitnition of what it is, and as a artist as long as he produces work that he agrees with than others opinion dont matter! what may be a cartoon to u others may see as a fine work of quality art. An in my defitnition art works meaning is way more important then it's aesthetic appeal because the main reason for art is to provide a function n express a feeling of whatever your art work may be!
ReplyDeleteMurakami uses his great skill as an artist to merge the distance between camp and high art. History has shown that much of what is considered high art was at first recognized as art by the common woman/man first. After mass appeal the upper class people of the time soon realized or got over themselves enough to see different types of art's true meaning.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I really enjoy about Murakami's art is that is brings consciousness to people. It shows how materialistic things are corrupting individuality from this world. The majority of todays people spend their lives just trying to fit in instead of finding out who they really are. I believe his art pulls us out of this bleak state of mind and into a world of possiblities and reality.
What is more important in your definition: (1)the artwork's meaning or (2)its aesthetic appeal?
ReplyDeleteI think that an artworks aesthetic appeal is more important. The more appealing the artwork is to the public/consumers the more buyers you'll get. Most people usually just like the way something looks, and not for its meaning. Most people may not even see the same meaning in a peice of art as another or as the creator. Everyone perceives things differently.
There is no set definition of what art is, but you always have your personal opinion on something. I my opinion, when something is made as a mass consumer product, I don't think you can call it art. You can't just say something is art just because it is brought into an art setting. I think Murakami must think of art differently than most people do. His large scale paintings and sculptures are enough.
ReplyDeleteIf I would buy art, I would buy it because of its aesthetic appeal, not because of its meaning. I would never want to have something in my livingroom like a painting made of elephantpoop. On the other hand, when I would visit a museum, I always want to know extra information about the piece of art, especially when something is rather awkward like the urinal showed in class.
i really dont understand what art is, but when i look at this picture i feel like i do. it looks down to earth in some way. like someone of my age drawn the picture
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei think every artwork is unique, doesn't matter how strange or silly it may look. even though i really don't understand what art is because it really doesn't have a specific definition to describe it. But any ways art is simple art.
ReplyDeleteI believe that art work has to be both beautiful and meaningful... i mean the beuaty is really what brings people into the museums and i think the art is created on meaning so they kinda work together to creat the work.
ReplyDeleteI think anything that is created and has meaning is art. I that by it just being unique it can have added meaning. I do not think that art that is for public consumption diminishes my meaning of art. Art is many different things, and it is incredibly broad.
ReplyDeletei think he should. because when he makes art he does it because of the love and compassion he has for it. and we as humans can get involve in his works by setting out different perspectives about it. that's just my opinion
ReplyDelete1.I feel as though the number one thing that is important is not the meaning of the painting but the aesthetic appeal.I believe this is true because regardless of what the artist says to define his/her art you will still see what you want to see. That is what is most important not what somebody tells what it means but what you get out of the work of art.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that Murakami is moving away from high art just to broaden his talents. He's already done enough praise worthy work that he can do what ever work he wants to now. And yes he is the guy that did the art work for the Kanye West album. Which is an example of him straying away from high art